Paul Murphy urges swift passage of Debelins redundancy protections

Thanks for the presentations. Firstly, just to pay tribute to the Debelins workers for their struggle. I think the very, very least that the Dáil can do is to, you know, rapidly work through this legislation and pass it. Try to make sure that no future workers are put in the situation they were in. We went through clearies and then we went to Debelins again and everyone said, oh, sure, if only we'd done what we meant to do after clearies and there must not be another group of workers like that. And just to start with Ms. McElwee, if that's okay, just a, it'd be fair to say that you have sympathy for the plight of the Debelins workers, would it? And sympathy for any employee who finds themselves in a situation of redundancy. It is a very distressing situation to lose your job, to find yourself without your means of your income, but also all of the social engagement, friendships that you've built up. It is a very, very difficult situation. So, of course, I have huge sympathy for anybody in that circumstance. Thanks. Thanks. You're also making the case, and I don't dispute it, that Debelins was in compliance with the law. Yeah, you're not saying that Debelins broke the law. That's my understanding, yes. You're also against changing the law. I am against the proposals in this bill, Deputy, because I think they create two classes of entitlement to employees who are suffering the same situation of redundancy, depending on how the employer finds themselves in terms of financial situations. And I am speaking in the firm belief that the vast majority of employers act honourably, and these circumstances arise in the normal course of a business environment. So, your opposition to this proposal is based on the inequality that will be potentially created, in your view, between workers? I think there is huge potential for inequality to be created. I also think there is a very significant issue arising from recognising a voluntary agreement agreed between an employer and their employees in circumstances that are most likely not envisaging any situation of insolvency arising. So, most ex gratia payments and most collective agreements are negotiated in order to sustain and maintain a going concern. They are rarely, and never actually, in my own personal experience, negotiated with an insolvency situation in mind. So, making that a statutory obligation on the state is a very concerning move. Just maybe to address that, because you have made that point a couple of times, but then you yourself made the point that the effect of this legislation would be to change the order of creditors, and you made the point that suppliers could therefore lose out. But it is also the case that the state did not have anything to do with the contract between suppliers and, let us say, debilums in this case. So, why on earth are you insisting that it is a problem that the state did not have anything to do with these collective agreements, but the state also did not have anything to do with the agreements between other creditors? The order of creditors is being reordered. Why are you suggesting there is any sort of problem there? What I am suggesting is that there is a reason why there is a priority order, and I begin by saying I am not at all an expert in company law, but there are priority orders in terms of how a liquidator needs to distribute the assets. And I am simply making the point that when you change the priority order in one situation, then obviously there are less assets to be distributed elsewhere. And I am simply making the point that one of those situations may well be that suppliers who are owed money as well will have less money, and that then impacts on their own employees and their financial sustainability. But it means there is no basis for the point you are making that there is some problem here because the state was not involved in negotiating these collective agreements. Because the state also was not involved in the contracts between the creditors, the supplier and the company. So, there is no basis for that? It is something of a separate issue. But we are just reordering the issue of creditors here, so I do not understand why the idea that the state has no hand in the collective agreements would have any relevance. Well, there is a legal contract, a legally enforceable contract between a supplier and the company that has gone into liquidation. And so, therefore, the liquidator has to deal with that contract and that commercial contract that arises. An industrial relations agreement around an ex-gracia payment is not a legally binding contract. So, it is a different situation. Sure, but the benefit that we have being in the Dáil is we get to write the law, and so we can change the law to say that absolutely workers do take precedence in this situation. So, just to react to the other point you are making, can I just ask another question in relation to the inequality of workers? So, would you agree if we amended the legislation to say that all collective redundancy agreements, whether in insolvency situations or not, those workers should take priority and there should be like a legal right to those agreements? So, Deputy, then the question that arises for me in the situation that you are suggesting is that if you change the law so that those collective agreements then become that legally binding contract, do you also then change the law that says all collective agreements have to be the same? Because otherwise, how do you then mitigate against employers having very different ex-gracia payments in place and the state paying different amounts of ex-gracia payment to different employees depending on the sector or industry that they are in? So, therefore, you still end up by requiring that the ex-gracia is included as part of a statutory redundancy payment paid through a social insurance fund that people would still be entitled to different depending on whatever their employer had. But this isn't about the state paying for it. And that's why I think there's a lot of confusion in what you're saying. You repeatedly refer to the state. This is talking about the company paying for it. So, you're saying there's an issue. Can I finish the question? You're saying that there's an issue in terms of inequality of workers. I'm asking you, okay, fine, let's say we accept that point. So, let's raise all workers. Would you agree with that? I understand that's what you're saying. Yes. Would you agree with raising all workers to address this issue of inequality that you're raising? Well, the challenge, though, is the way that this particular bill is worded is it's not raising all workers. It's raising some workers. No, no, but we could amend it. Just to be clear, is IBEC asking us to amend it so that all workers get that right? No, I'm not asking you to amend it so that... No, you're not. And that's the point, is that you want an equality of misery. You don't want the workers' rights to be raised. No, it's not that. It's the fact that we have a situation whereby there are industrial relations norms that apply to the negotiation of collective agreements in our industrial relations framework. So, therefore, unless you are also going to change all of our industrial relations legislation, in which case you would effectively end up needing to say you cannot negotiate anything other than a standard additional statutory redundancy payment, then we wouldn't actually have the opportunity to make those agreements at all. Just one final question. I mean, fundamentally, the bottom line point is, IBEC is in favour of companies like Debenhams being able to walk away from negotiated agreements with workers in an insubisant situation. You're saying that that situation should continue? Deputy, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that in amending legislation, and this is the legislation we're here to look at, these particular provisions that are being proposed here do not equally and fairly address the issue that's at hand here. Thanks, Mr. Mark. Thanks, Deputy, more for your time.